Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return

[Eric Gray <[e-mail]>]

Stewart,

	I understand your point.  But the question is not whether or not it will work, 
but rather whether or not there is consensus to do it this way.

	On any given day, it is trivial to come up with any number of approaches
for doing something (whatever that something is) that will _work_ - which is not the
same as saying that we should all pour energy into any of those ideas.

	I also understand the pressures associated with customer requirements, but
don't see why the customer(s) behind your requirements should have the last word
on which approach should be used - based solely on those requirements.

	That approach leads to a point-solution that has a definite non-zero cost.  As
a general approach, the continuous generation of point solutions has its own scaling
issues.

	It is my hope that someone will have the energy to put together a draft to
propose an alternative based on LMAP.  I personally do not have either the energy
or the bandwidth.  In fact, I don't have the bandwidth or the energy to continue in 
this discussion.   I sincerely hope and intend this will be my last post on this topic.

	If there is insufficient interest in developing the scaled-down version of an
LMAP-based proposal - either within the MPLS working group, or among the LMAP
framework authors - before the Toronto meeting, or there is not a number of like
objections raised on the MPLS mailing list, then it would seem that the WG default 
consensus  is to proceed with your draft.

	Believe it or not, I personally can live with that.

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 11:18 AM
To: Eric Gray; Gregory Mirsky; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return
Importance: High

Eric

I think the onus is on you as the objector to provide me with a pointer to a specific protocol alternative not a framework, or to show why this simple addition of four bytes will not work in the manner that I describe.

Stewart